Convention Abbreviation:
CAT
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE
19 OF THE CONVENTION
Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture
Panama
311. The
Committee considered the second periodic report of Panama (CAT/C/17/Add.7)
at its 141st and 142nd meetings, on 21 April 1993 (see CAT/C/SR.141
and 142).
312. The
report was introduced by the representative of the State party, who
informed the Committee of the efforts his Government had made to improve
and adapt the Panamanian penal and penitentiary system to contemporary
requirements and of the progress that had been made in bringing the
Panamanian justice system into conformity with the Convention. He
indicated that those tasks had not been made easier following the
events of 20 December 1989, which had led to the destruction of the
penitentiary centres and an increase in crime.
313. The
representative also provided further information of general interest,
relating to the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial
and executive branches of government and to the organization and structure
of the administration of justice in Panama. In particular, reference
was made to the powers and composition of the Supreme Court of Justice
and its four chambers, one of which, namely the Administrative Division,
following the adoption of a recent law, had the power to annul any
administrative decisions that undermined the protection of human rights
or were not in conformity with the standards provided for in the international
human rights instruments to which Panama was a party.
314. The
representative also provided a description of the role of the Public
Prosecutor, the Attorney General and the staff of the Public Prosecutor's
Department in the prosecution of crimes. It was indicated that an
inquiry into the prosecution of a crime could be opened by the Public
Prosecutor on the basis of information received from the media or
other sources without the necessity of an individual complaint or
accusation. The legal process in place for the prosecution of crimes
consisted of three stages. During each stage all the guarantees of
due process were respected, for example, presumption of innocence,
right to, and contact with, a lawyer, provision of instructions relating
to preventive detention, recourse to habeas corpus and prohibition
of coercion. The inquiry procedure, or first stage, was of a maximum
duration of two months except in exceptional circumstances, when it
could be extended for another two months. Once the inquiry had been
completed, the process entered its second or intermediate phase with
the accused brought before the competent court. Within 15 working
days the court had to decide on the merits of the inquiry. In extreme
cases, the court could return the case to the Public Prosecutor in
order that further inquiries be undertaken. The third stage was preceded
by a given period to permit the defence to gather the necessary evidence
and to determine whether to challenge the evidence presented by the
prosecutor and appeal against the proceedings so far undertaken. On
the basis of the evidence before the court, a decision by the court
would be pronounced within 10 days. The accused had the right to appeal
to a higher court against any sentence handed down to him.
315. In addition,
the representative indicated the measures taken by Panama to ensure
the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. He mentioned,
in particular, the Council of Judicial Ethics, which evaluated and
handed down rulings on complaints from victims of violations of certain
ethical or moral principles during judicial procedures.
316. Recently
efforts had been made to reduce preventive detention, sentencing to
prison and the prison population, through, inter alia, the
revision of the penal system.
317. Finally,
the representative of the reporting State outlined more specific measures
that had been taken to implement the provisions of the Convention,
which included the incorporation within domestic law of the definition
of torture and penalties for the violation of human rights ranging
from 6 months to 15 years' imprisonment and mutual legal assistance
in matters of extradition. The representative also indicated the importance
his Government attached to meeting the requirements of its international
human rights obligations and in this connection referred to the construction
and functioning of a model prison at La Joya.
318. The
members of the Committee expressed their appreciation for the information
contained in the report and that provided by the representative of
the State party. They also observed that they had received no allegations
that torture was practised in Panama. Nevertheless, they wished to
receive more information on how the provisions of the Convention,
especially article 1, had been incorporated within domestic law. They
also requested further information on the status of the Convention
in domestic law and on the 23 court decisions relating to the implementation
of the Convention, referred to in the report. They wished to receive
further information on the organization, functions and independence
of the judiciary and administrators. They also wished to receive information
on the number of persons in detention, particularly political prisoners,
and asked whether the public had welcomed the measures taken by the
Government on the depenalization of the judicial system. Further information
was also sought on the work of the Panamanian Commission on Human
Rights, especially with regard to torture-related matters, and whether
non-governmental organizations could regularly inspect and visit prisons
and places of detention. Members of the Committee also wished to know
whether the Government intended to make a declaration under articles
21 and 22 of the Convention.
319. Concerning
article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested further
information on the application of provisions of the Judicial Code
by which the Administrative Division was empowered to nullify administrative
decisions which violated justiciable human rights. They also wished
to know whether special courts existed for members of the armed or
security forces and whether the jurisdiction of ordinary courts could
be suspended, notably in a state of emergency. Clarification was also
requested as to the compatibility of Panamanian legislation with provisions
of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention, according to which an
order from a superior officer or a public authority could not be invoked
as a justification of torture.
320. In respect
of article 3 of the Convention, additional information was sought
on the measures taken by the State party to ensure that persons were
not extradited to a State where the risk of being subjected to torture
existed.
321. Regarding
article 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to receive
further information on the penalization of acts of torture.
322. Additional
information was requested on the implementation of articles 5, 7 and
9 of the Convention, particularly with regard to the full application
of the principles of universal jurisdiction and mutual legal assistance.
323. With
regard to article 10 of the Convention, further information was sought
specifically on the training given to medical personnel for the prohibition
of torture and the identification and treatment of torture victims.
324. In connection
with article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished
to receive further information on the implementation of the article,
particularly regarding the length of pre-trial detention, the rules
and regulations governing preventive detention and the right of an
individual to legal assistance from the moment of his arrest.
325. Regarding
article 13 of the Convention, clarification was sought as to the authority
competent to conduct inquiries into complaints against the police.
326. With
regard to article 14 of the Convention, clarification was requested
as to the rights of victims to bring a criminal action against a person
alleged to have committed a violation of human rights and the rights
of victims to rehabilitation and compensation. In particular, members
of the Committee asked whether medical centres for the rehabilitation
of torture victims existed in Panama and whether or not the State
assumed responsibility for compensating a victim of torture whenever
a police officer had committed such an act.
327. Concerning
article 16 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested further
information on the treatment and institutionalization of mentally
ill persons, particularly whether specialized psychiatric hospitals
existed and whether political prisoners had ever been detained there.
328. Replying
to questions raised by members of the Committee, the representative
of the reporting State said that the Convention against Torture had
been fully integrated into Panamanian legislation and that the Constitution
of Panama contained a full definition of torture. Derogations from
the Convention were not admissible unless the Convention itself was
denounced. The Supreme Court of Justice was concerned with ensuring
respect for the Constitution and adherence to the provisions of the
Convention. The function of the Attorney General's office was to defend
the interests of the State, to ensure compliance with legislation
and to monitor the conduct of public officials. The Attorney General
was authorized to initiate any proceedings against any official. Panama
had a professional civil police force which was subordinate to the
Public Prosecutor's Department. It also had a national police force
which was subordinate to the Ministry of Justice, which was itself
responsible to the President. With regard to the issue of decriminalization
and recourse to forms of punishment other than imprisonment, the representative
informed the Committee that such measures were favoured when dealing
with first offenders charged with crimes customarily punishable by
less than three years' imprisonment. The results of those measures
had been positive and a failure rate of only 1 per cent had been noted.
The representative also indicated that until 21 December 1992 there
had been no cases of political prisoners, but that four such cases
had recently come before the courts, for which information would be
provided in the next report. In addition, he indicated that there
were 3,400 persons currently in prison for various types of offences.
Non-governmental organizations were allowed access to prisons and
other detention establishments and they could make recommendations
concerning conditions of detention. Under article 22 of the Constitution
any such recommendations must be transmitted to the relevant authorities.
329. Concerning
the various questions raised with regard to article 2 of the Convention,
the representative informed the Committee that although the possibility
existed for administrative decisions to be overturned should they
violate human rights, no such cases had been recorded. He also stated
that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war
or internal conflict, could be invoked in Panama for justification
of torture. In addition, he explained that article 34 of the Constitution
did not exempt a person from liability for a manifest violation of
a constitutional or legal provision to the detriment of another person
on the grounds that he acted under orders from a superior. However,
in the case of police officers on duty and members of the armed forces,
responsibility fell solely on the superior who had given the order.
Furthermore, disciplinary measures could be imposed by a supervisory
body of the police force upon police officers who had violated another's
human rights.
330. With
regard to article 3 of the Convention, the representative explained
that in relation to extradition matters Panama adhered to the norms
established by the Bustamanti Code and the Caracas Convention and
that the extradition of a person would not be permissible if there
were evidence that it might lead to his being tortured, executed or
persecuted.
331. Concerning
article 4 of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee
that specific provisions of the Penal Code were devoted to matters
relating to torture and other human rights violations.
332. In respect
of article 9 of the Convention, the representative indicated that
mutual legal cooperation existed between Panama and other States regardless
of whether a formal bilateral agreement was in place.
333. In connection
with article 10 of the Convention, the representative explained that
compulsory training programmes were organized for doctors, lawyers
etc. to ensure that they were fully aware of all aspects of human
rights issues.
334. With
respect to article 11 of the Convention, the representative indicated
the measures his Government had taken to implement the minimum rules
for the treatment of prisoners and he pointed out that there had been
no cases of torture in prison establishments. With regard to pre-trial
detention, he stated that the prison authorities must receive a written
detention order and that there were no cases of pre-trial detention
having lasted longer than one year. He also indicated that Panamanian
law provided that the police were entitled to detain a suspect for
24 hours before the rule of habeas corpus applied. Guarantees were
provided to ensure that persons were not subjected to coercion when
making statements and persons accused of having committed an offence
were entitled to make their statements in the presence of a lawyer.
Furthermore, all interviews were recorded and the accused had the
right to appeal if he felt that constitutional guarantees had been
violated.
335. Regarding
article 13 of the Convention, the representative indicated that persons
who considered themselves victims of torture were entitled to apply
for administrative redress and to initiate proceedings in the courts.
336. Concerning
article 14 of the Convention, the representative explained that Panamanian
legislation provided for compensation in the event of civil liability
for wrongful arrest and that if the plaintiff were unable financially
to sustain his own case, the State was under the obligation to provide
funds for that purpose. Moreover, technical and medical services were
provided under the social security system and included therapy for
persons suffering from a mental disorder.
337. With
respect to article 16 of the Convention, the representative informed
the Committee that cases involving mentally ill persons were assessed
by the Institute of Forensic Medicine and that criminal proceedings
would be suspended until the person was considered fit for trial.
Psychiatric institutions did exist in Panama exclusively in the interests
of treating persons with mental illness and there were no cases in
Panama of persons being or having been held in psychiatric institutions
on the grounds of their political opinion.
Conclusions and recommendations
338. The
Committee recalled that when it had examined the initial report of
Panama on 23 April 1991 it had concluded that the Government of Panama
in its next report should, inter alia, take into account the
various questions raised and remarks made by the members of the Committee
and provide a full description of the legislative measures taken to
implement each article of the Convention in practice. The Committee
was of the view that the first supplementary report fulfilled all
those expectations.
339. It concluded
that the legal system in Panama was generally in accordance with the
principles contained in the Convention, although it appeared that
article 34 of the Panamanian Constitution, which related to police
officers and provided for the defence of superior orders in the perpetration
of an act of torture, did not comply with article 2, paragraph 3,
of the Convention.
340. The
Committee also concluded that the legal system as described during
the consideration of the report appeared to be geared towards the
highest possible protection of human rights. The Committee also took
note with satisfaction of the penal system in place in Panama and
of its principle of "non-imprisonment".
341. In addition,
the Committee expressed its satisfaction with the timing and content
of the report considered and expressed the hope that the Government
of Panama would soon make a declaration to accept the provisions of
article 22 of the Convention.